Strength Before Size? Why?

Training
61

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]mr popular wrote:

[quote]alexus wrote:

[quote]mr popular wrote:

You are a female olympic weightlifter.

No one cares what you think about bodybuilding. Seriously.[/quote]

yeah, i clearly don’t know what i’m on about when i say that people should check out the ‘do this routine instead of that dumb one’ thread over on the bodybuilding forum if they want a decent bodypart split program.

silly girl.[/quote]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
[/quote]

A broken clock is exactly right twice a day. A running clock is never exactly right.[/quote]

Unless it’s atomic![/quote]

Actually, even they have a margin of error. And their exactness is in regard to the precise running of the clock, not it’s calibration to “correct” time.[/quote]

Interesting and I suppose that makes sense. However, since time doesn’t truly exist and is assigned and compartmentalized by man, i.e. a human construct, who’s to say which clock is right and which is wrong?

62

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]mr popular wrote:

[quote]alexus wrote:

[quote]mr popular wrote:

You are a female olympic weightlifter.

No one cares what you think about bodybuilding. Seriously.[/quote]

yeah, i clearly don’t know what i’m on about when i say that people should check out the ‘do this routine instead of that dumb one’ thread over on the bodybuilding forum if they want a decent bodypart split program.

silly girl.[/quote]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
[/quote]

A broken clock is exactly right twice a day. A running clock is never exactly right.[/quote]

Unless it’s atomic![/quote]

Actually, even they have a margin of error. And their exactness is in regard to the precise running of the clock, not it’s calibration to “correct” time.[/quote]

Interesting and I suppose that makes sense. However, since time doesn’t truly exist and is assigned and compartmentalized by man, i.e. a human construct, who’s to say which clock is right and which is wrong?[/quote]

Either way, they are all wrong by some standard where broken ones are exactly correct, by any standard, twice a day.

Any measure of a continuous object is, by definition in-exact.

Although I guess it could be perfect if the universe were actually discontinuous, which is possible.

/tangent

63

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]alexus wrote:

[quote]mr popular wrote:

You are a female olympic weightlifter.

No one cares what you think about bodybuilding. Seriously.[/quote]

yeah, i clearly don’t know what i’m on about when i say that people should check out the ‘do this routine instead of that dumb one’ thread over on the bodybuilding forum if they want a decent bodypart split program.

silly girl.[/quote]

But at least Olympic weightlifters can intelligently discuss building strength, power, and enhancing athletic performance. Bodybuilders…hmmm, they really can’t talk about any of these things. All they know is aesthetics. It’s like comparing a hair stylist and a brain surgeon - both work on the head, but only one can actually save a person’s life.

And it seems that everyone and their brother can call themselves a “bodybuilder” simply by stepping into a gym. The title of Olympic weightlifter must be earned. I earned my title by stepping out on the platform. You want stats? In my first meet I placed second in my age division and weight class.

But don’t listen to me. I’m just a cranky old Masters Olympic weightlifter.

Okay, I’m getting snarky and starting to launch personal attacks.

To the OP: Pick a bodypart split from the thread that Alexus mentioned and work the crap out of whatever program you choose. [/quote]

Cool story, but the point of the thread is about why you do or don’t need strength before training for hypertrophy.

To continue your analogy, if someone’s question is about what # razor to use on the back of their head to copy Brad Pitt from Fight Club, you wouldn’t ask a brain surgeon… so why is the brain surgeon weighing in?[/quote]

I see it this way: If someone says they want a career where they can work on people’s heads, would you advise them to become a hair stylist or brain surgeon, assuming the person was smart enough to be a brain surgeon? I guess I never saw the point of looking strong without being strong as well - it’s just a waste of time. Yeah I know - bodybuilders can gain strength.

But back to the original question. Look at the guys training in the Indigo Project. There are esthetic benefits to be gained from training for strength. The guys with a strength background have a better quality physique. Synergy was very impressive. And IMO, CT has always been the poster boy for a “strength first” approach. And then there was Professor X. He took a lot of crap for the weights he was using and his level of conditioning. I played nice and tried to be supportive, and I also realized he was fighting a cold, had some asthma issues, and he was training at altitude, so some of the criticism was undeserved. But still, at the end of the day, he came across as weak and out of shape. I do not want to be like that, nor should anyone else. And based on my own experience and observations of my own training and watching others, traditional bodybuilding methods will leave you weak and out of shape.

64

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]mr popular wrote:

[quote]alexus wrote:

[quote]mr popular wrote:

You are a female olympic weightlifter.

No one cares what you think about bodybuilding. Seriously.[/quote]

yeah, i clearly don’t know what i’m on about when i say that people should check out the ‘do this routine instead of that dumb one’ thread over on the bodybuilding forum if they want a decent bodypart split program.

silly girl.[/quote]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
[/quote]

A broken clock is exactly right twice a day. A running clock is never exactly right.[/quote]

Unless it’s atomic![/quote]

Actually, even they have a margin of error. And their exactness is in regard to the precise running of the clock, not it’s calibration to “correct” time.[/quote]

Interesting and I suppose that makes sense. However, since time doesn’t truly exist and is assigned and compartmentalized by man, i.e. a human construct, who’s to say which clock is right and which is wrong?[/quote]

Any measure of a continuous object is, by definition in-exact.

Although I guess it could be perfect if the universe were actually discontinuous, which is possible.

/tangent[/quote]

Interesting to think about.

65

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I think I’ll start giving advice on the OLifting forum. I mean I have a 500lbs+ pull, so I know what I’m talking about in all aspects of weight lifting.

Fucking internet…

[/quote]

This isn’t the BBing forum. And most people that give advice in the BBing forum are not actual competing BBers.

The other side of this is that O-lifting is in part about adding muscle, BBing is not in part about getting good at the O-lifts.[/quote]

Again based on my own experience, when I switched to an O lifting program I gained both strength AND size and I wasn’t even trying to gain size. No special diet, supplements, or special super-secret training techniques - just the O lifts and squats. To be fair, I tend to gain muscle easily and I don’t have a problem putting down food, but still. The whole experience made me feel like the time I spent doing bodybuilding was wasted.

66

What’s this thread about again? A skinny kind wanting size wasn’t it? lol

Not that my post matters now, but here it goes:

Train a muscle as frequently as it can recover from (i.e. when your stronger, you’re recovered)

Gain 3-4lbs a month while shooting for at least 1g protein/lbs of bodyweight/day

Was that simple enough? :slight_smile:

PS - don’t neglect your upper chest, arms, delts…etc (also known as doing Starting Strength)

67

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]alexus wrote:

[quote]mr popular wrote:

You are a female olympic weightlifter.

No one cares what you think about bodybuilding. Seriously.[/quote]

yeah, i clearly don’t know what i’m on about when i say that people should check out the ‘do this routine instead of that dumb one’ thread over on the bodybuilding forum if they want a decent bodypart split program.

silly girl.[/quote]

But at least Olympic weightlifters can intelligently discuss building strength, power, and enhancing athletic performance. Bodybuilders…hmmm, they really can’t talk about any of these things. All they know is aesthetics. It’s like comparing a hair stylist and a brain surgeon - both work on the head, but only one can actually save a person’s life.

And it seems that everyone and their brother can call themselves a “bodybuilder” simply by stepping into a gym. The title of Olympic weightlifter must be earned. I earned my title by stepping out on the platform. You want stats? In my first meet I placed second in my age division and weight class.

But don’t listen to me. I’m just a cranky old Masters Olympic weightlifter.

Okay, I’m getting snarky and starting to launch personal attacks.

To the OP: Pick a bodypart split from the thread that Alexus mentioned and work the crap out of whatever program you choose. [/quote]

Cool story, but the point of the thread is about why you do or don’t need strength before training for hypertrophy.

To continue your analogy, if someone’s question is about what # razor to use on the back of their head to copy Brad Pitt from Fight Club, you wouldn’t ask a brain surgeon… so why is the brain surgeon weighing in?[/quote]

I see it this way: If someone says they want a career where they can work on people’s heads, would you advise them to become a hair stylist or brain surgeon, assuming the person was smart enough to be a brain surgeon? I guess I never saw the point of looking strong without being strong as well - it’s just a waste of time. Yeah I know - bodybuilders can gain strength.

But back to the original question. Look at the guys training in the Indigo Project. There are esthetic benefits to be gained from training for strength. The guys with a strength background have a better quality physique. Synergy was very impressive. And IMO, CT has always been the poster boy for a “strength first” approach. And then there was Professor X. He took a lot of crap for the weights he was using and his level of conditioning. I played nice and tried to be supportive, and I also realized he was fighting a cold, had some asthma issues, and he was training at altitude, so some of the criticism was undeserved. But still, at the end of the day, he came across as weak and out of shape. I do not want to be like that, nor should anyone else. And based on my own experience and observations of my own training and watching others, traditional bodybuilding methods will leave you weak and out of shape.[/quote]

God damn you are good at missing the point. The OP’s question wasn’t about what YOU consider impressive, as important as your opinion is. His question was specifically about gaining strength before size, a topic you haven’t touched on at all. It’s literally like asking you a trig question and you answer that calculus is way more useful. Cool and all but totally useless as a response to the specific question.

I’m done responding because I’m sure this conversation could go on forever given your inability to understand how to answer a question on a specific topic. You just see a question on weightlifting in general and go on about what you believe is the best way to weightlift…which is, once again, irrelevant to the question.

68

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

This isn’t the BBing forum.[/quote]

Really? I hadn’t noticed. What I did notice on the other hand is the fucking topic of the thread, which is more in line with BB’ing than how big your snatch is.

Sure, but quite a few of them are a fuck load stronger than anyone I can remember posting in this clusterfuck thread.

Wow, I know you are smarter than this.

69

Well, scj119, I did answer the question, right here:

“The guys with a strength background have a better quality physique. Synergy was very impressive. And IMO, CT has always been the poster boy for a “strength first” approach.”

See? Lifting heavy results in a denser, better-looking physique. Isn’t that the goal of bodybuilding? To have a good physique with quality muscle mass vs. just being “big?” What “point” am I missing?

70

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
traditional bodybuilding methods will leave you weak and out of shape.[/quote]

lol

71

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Well, scj119, I did answer the question, right here:

“The guys with a strength background have a better quality physique. Synergy was very impressive. And IMO, CT has always been the poster boy for a “strength first” approach.”

See? Lifting heavy results in a denser, better-looking physique. Isn’t that the goal of bodybuilding? To have a good physique with quality muscle mass vs. just being “big?” What “point” am I missing? [/quote]

Yes, all bodybuilders are weak, no not a single one of them are much, much stronger than you. You and your methods are the be all and end all of all things “gaining size”.

Please start a thread and teach all of us that haven’t gotten stronger than you on splits the error of our ways.

You are so twisted up in dogma, you are hopeless.

72

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Well, scj119, I did answer the question, right here:

“The guys with a strength background have a better quality physique. Synergy was very impressive. And IMO, CT has always been the poster boy for a “strength first” approach.”

See? Lifting heavy results in a denser, better-looking physique. Isn’t that the goal of bodybuilding? To have a good physique with quality muscle mass vs. just being “big?” What “point” am I missing? [/quote]

Yes, all bodybuilders are weak, no not a single one of them are much, much stronger than you. You and your methods are the be all and end all of all things “gaining size”.

Please start a thread and teach all of us that haven’t gotten stronger than you on splits the error of our ways.

You are so twisted up in dogma, you are hopeless.
[/quote]

No dogma, just experience - best gains I made was when I switched to a strength emphasis.

Self-described bodybuilders always amuse me. They get so defensive and angry in the presence of Olympic lifters.

73

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

No dogma, just experience - best gains I made was when I switched to a strength emphasis.[/quote]

And in mine, you need to curl to have big arms. OP wants big arms. … … …

Great. Who the fuck are you talking about? Certainly not me. You’ll not find me calling myself that.

Funny that the BB’ers I know, in person, who I would bet are stronger than the peeps int this thread, yes, all of them, are encourging and helpful to people. Shit, I even had one dude talk to me about how he put 45lbs on his squat in 90 days, yes his 1RM. Very unlike the Olifters I’ve seen on the internet, they understand not everyone has the same goal as them…

LOL. I’m laughing because you actually think this way.

Holy shit, comedy gold.

74

shouldnt we get back to helping the kid that started this thread, and not argue with an olympic lifter about bodybuilding.

75

Crossfit.

Just throwing that out there as I think this thread has hit rock bottom.

76

We should get back to helping the kid. Someone’s already explained why strength is needed to gain size. Here it is:

[quote]JFG wrote:
To gain size you need poundage.

To get poundage you need strength.

To get strength you need to follow a strength program.
[/quote]

Here’s a more “scientific” explanation. Gaining size requires time under tension (TUT) or, as some have called it, time under load (TUL). That’s it - it’s that simple. Heavy weight produces more tension, and more tension is good. “Time” is taken care of by the number of sets. A beginner has no business doing 10 sets with a heavy weight simply because they’re joints aren’t used to lifting heavy. So, start off with a lower volume program such as Rippetoe’s, which only uses 3 sets of 5, to build strength both in the muscles and the joints. After a few weeks, bump that up to 5 sets of 5 - a proven method for building both size and strength. Doing 5x5 with the big lifts 3 days a week further increases the time spent under tension/load. Do this along with eating lots and the result is size. Once you’re moving some decent weight and the big 3 lifts (bench, squat, deadlift), THEN you can think about goofing around with curls, chest flyes, and what not. I’ve yet to see a guy who can bench 300 with a flat chest and skinny arms.

What the hell is so controversial about the above program?

77

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
What the hell is so controversial about the above program?
[/quote]

This part for the most part:

You do NOT have to wait until you cross some arbitrary line in the sand to add 4 fucking sets of curls after you squat.

Did you read where I’ve said this at least 6 times now? You don’t even understand what the issue is, and insist your way is best… I don’t get it.

I’m done with you. When OP comes back with a block torso, no delts, and a 500lbs pull with 15" arms, YOU can help him. I’m fucking done.

78

One thing i never understood is,

why are only the big three the measurements of strength?

Since the OP wants to get big everywhere, shouldn’t he be strong everywhere?

Shouldn’t he be trying to get to 50lb lateral raises, 80lbs curls AND 700lbs squats, not one or the other?

When people say you need to get stronger they almost always mean on the big 3+rows, overhead press and chin ups

But if big biceps were the goal, wouldn’t getting stronger on curls make more sense than focusing on a bigger squat?

While I overall agree with Mike the Bear, isolations should be done as they don’t tax the body as much and are easy to recover from. A few sets of curls isn’t gonna break anyone( with exceptions).

79

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
When OP comes back with a block torso, no delts, and a 500lbs pull with 15" arms, YOU can help him. I’m fucking done. [/quote]

Seriously? Do you not know basic physiology?

Here’s a True or False quiz:

The triceps contribute to bench pressing.

The triceps contribute to overhead pressing.

The deltoids are used in both bench pressing and overhead pressing.

The biceps contribute to rows.

I should note here that Rippetoe’s program recommends both overhead pressing and rowing (for those who don’t power clean).

Show me a guy with a big bench, overhead press, and row who has skinny arms and no delts.

If 4 sets of curls will make you and the OP happy, that’s fine, throw in some curls. What he doesn’t need is a whole entire “arm day.”

80

[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
One thing i never understood is,

why are only the big three the measurements of strength?

Since the OP wants to get big everywhere, shouldn’t he be strong everywhere?

Shouldn’t he be trying to get to 50lb lateral raises, 80lbs curls AND 700lbs squats, not one or the other?

When people say you need to get stronger they almost always mean on the big 3+rows, overhead press and chin ups. [/quote]

I agree, he should get strong everywhere. Here’s the thing: doing the big 3 + rows, overhead press and chin ups WILL get him strong everywhere. The idea that you can have a big bench and do chin ups with added weight while having skinny arms is ridiculous. Sure, I bet you can go to a powerlifting meet and see a guy in one of the lower weight classes bench 300+ with skinny arms. But if that guy is trying to stay in a lighter weight class then he is training to avoid gaining mass on purpose. Someone benching heavy while eating to support weight gain will probably not have skinny arms.

Not necessarily, and it involves more physiology stuff. There is some evidence to suggest that going heavy on compound lifts, and especially the squat, causes a large release in testosterone. Now, whether natural hormone levels can be manipulated to any significant degree through weight training has been debated, but it obviously won’t hurt and it might even help. And the suggestion by countingbeans to do some curls after squats actually makes sense - take advantage of the natural boost in hormone levels from the squats and use it to build some biceps.

And this increase in hormones is another reason why it makes sense to focus on the big lifts and strength first.

Fine, do some curls, no big deal. What I don’t like to see is kids doing leg extensions who then complain that their legs are too small. Answer: Get your ass under a bar and squat.